Comments for Boston Bible Geeks

Comment on Why is David a “Man after God’s Own Heart”? by Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:53:09 +0000

Right, but I get the impression that the marriage didn’t last long, and David was off at war most of the time anyway (and thus not with his wife even much of his time at home — see his statement to the priest in ch.21 about abstention from sex). I also think there are good indications to think this was standard practice in Israel during the time of Judges, and the only beginnings of movement away came with Samuel and his circuit judging of Israel, which didn’t exactly place him in direct contact with most families for very long or very often. It’s really David’s reorganization of the priests and centralization under Abiathar and Zadok that gives pride of place to Torah orthodoxy. So I think the assumption since Judges is that there wasn’t much resistance to idolatry of the syncretistic sort unless we’re told otherwise.

Comment on Why is David a “Man after God’s Own Heart”? by danny

danny — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:38:38 +0000

True, although that incident occurred in David’s house, not Saul’s.

Comment on Why is David a “Man after God’s Own Heart”? by Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:20:05 +0000

There’s also the fact that Saul’s daughter had a household idol readily available to put into David’s bed to deceive her father’s men. It suggests that idol worship was probably at least tolerated in Saul’s household.

Comment on Why is David a “Man after God’s Own Heart”? by danny

danny — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:14:06 +0000

Yes, this is perhaps a dead horse, but I’ll keep beating. As I was reading in ZIBBCOT (review coming) they mention the replacement of “Baal” with “Besheth” in another place. 2 Samuel 11:21 refers to “Abimelek son of Jerub-Besheth,” who is actually “Jerubbaal” or “Gideon” (Judges 6:32).

What is interesting in this case, and perhaps speaks against Stuart’s interpretation, is that the use of “baal” in Gideon’s name isn’t an act of honoring the Canaanite deity. Jerubbaal means “let Baal contend” and is actually an act of defiance in a syncretistic culture. The point is that this is a case of the writer(s) of Samuel changing “baal” to “besheth” for a reason other than changing a tribute to a pagan god.

So, it’s possible that Saul named his child “Man of Baal” with “Baal” simply referring to “Master/Lord” as in YHWH. The writer(s) of Samuel seemed to want to avoid the use of “Baal” whether or not it was a tribute to the Canaanite god.

Comment on Why is David a “Man after God’s Own Heart”? by bmarchio

bmarchio — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:33:10 +0000

Re: the other names, I agree. I was just saying that Stuart claims nobody would ever name their son “man of shame.” I think that’s what is weak in his argument, since other OT names are negative, too. Of course, Stuart probably knows something about OT naming that I don’t. Scratch that. He definitely knows things about OT naming that I don’t.

Do you remember him offering anything else on 1 Sam. 13:14 being a reference to syncretism? The context of Saul’s official rejection as king is when he disobeys God’s specific commands to him regarding the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:11,19,23). Even though he acknowledges his sin, he doesn’t really seem to repent in the same way David does, either (i.e., 2 Sam. 12, and Ps. 51…if he wrote it). I always took this as the primary reason that Saul is not a man after God’s own heart.

Probably a dead horse by now. Interesting to ponder, though.

Comment on Why is David a “Man after God’s Own Heart”? by danny

danny — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:33:27 +0000

Yeah, I’m not convinced of the scribal change theory, either, though I’m not sure I have a better explanation at the moment. I almost left that part out of this post for fear of opening up a can of worms that distracted from the point. Thanks for proving me right.

The difference between Ishbaal and the other names you mention is that his name clearly offers tribute to another god (in Stuart’s reading). So it isn’t just a negative name; its an idolatrous one.

Comment on Why is David a “Man after God’s Own Heart”? by bmarchio

bmarchio — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:05:22 +0000

I’ve heard Stuart lecture on this as well. While I’m inclined to agree (in part because I can hold no candle to his exegetical prowess), I do find the scribal change argument on the weaker side. The OT has plenty of “bad” names (Jabez and Ichabod come to mind; Jacob isn’t exactly flattering either). It’s probably best in the end to argue from Chronicles, and offer the scribal change as a possible explanation for the difference in names, but not a necessity.

Comment on Who we are by bmarchio

bmarchio — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:56:00 +0000

Hi Marji -

I think I can speak for Danny as well when I say that we’re glad you find this site helpful. We still attend CFCF, and would be happy to meet you some Sunday at service. Until then, I hope you enjoy your explorations. All God’s best to you -

Brian

Comment on Who we are by marji

marji — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:57:06 +0000

Hey guys!

I was searching around the web and came across you and found CFCF through you, actually! One of those happy “accidents”, as I was looking for a church to attend. I like what you’re doing here and am always interested in meeting Christian intellectuals.

Are you all still at CFCF? I’d love to meet up sometime if you guys ever have the time. Looking forward to exploring your blog more completely (and when I am not at work, hehehe).

~marji

Comment on Knowing God: The Only True God by danny

danny — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:28:43 +0000

Hey Zuke, thanks for commenting. I think your last point is a big one for Packer, being a historical theologian and well aware of the pitfalls using images in worship has caused for different Christians groups over the centuries. Again, not necessarily a knock out argument, but one that must be strongly considered.